Talk:Weepers/@comment-149.159.125.109-20121012163318/@comment-75.37.3.130-20130219031608
My apologies for the delay in responding, life has a pain in the arse habit of catching up when you least expect it. However, now that I'm back, I'll continue responding. Firstly, let's get this out of the way firs tand foremost: the developers did indeed say that Chaos is less a system of morality and more an objective system of how Dunwall goes to hell. That being said? They. Lied. Seriously, there is no other way I can put it, as you can clearly see by the myriad ways that the game reacts, and how High Chaos is binarily conflated with morally "bad" choices, even when it is against all common sense. Again: why does killing Weepers- all things being equal- generate more chaos than killing guards? The latter are party to a totalitarian regime of the worst kind, yes; however, they're also the things keeping the foundations of society intact. Without them or at least something that can replace then, the consensus is that Dunwall will fall to the rats. On the other hand, the Weepers are carriers of the civilization-rending Rat Plague, who are by and large condemned as unsavable monsters by most of society (including those who were once their beloved ones) and whose deaths would *At Best* have no effect on the overall pace of the plague. So, riddle me this: why does the game count the latter as generating more "chaos" when killed than the former if Chaos is supposedly not a morality system but an objective measure of the city's descent into a plague infested hellhole? And that's just the most relevant issue where the "Chaos is not a measure of morality" lie can get reveale. I could write a doctoral thesis on why Yes, it clearly is some ham-handed measure of morality rather than the status of the city, but I won't for now. So thus, saying morality does not come into play here is bullocks. Now for the second part. Firstly, please familiarize yourself with the definition of Murder. It does not mean what you think it is. Murder is by definition the illegal taking of a life; the killing of those infected by the plague was never regarded as such in just about any major civilization or nation-state, and so would not apply to the killing of Weepers. Especially not when it is as often as not conducted in defense of self, defense of society, and/or defense of the nation... by virtue of them imperiling one's life through attacks or "attacks." We know this is abundantly the case in Dunwall at the time of the story because that is precisely what the Regency Government has been doing en-masse, what with using the Walls of Light, giving men orders to shoot to kill Weepers more or less on contact or sight, and what have you. By all accounts? The people of Dunwall are by and large *Fine* with this. Hell, it's pretty much one of the major things keeping the uninfected (mainly upper class) areas of Dunwall from being consumed by the plague. Yes, we all agree that overall, Weepers are a nonfactor compared to the rats in terms of plague spread and how it happens. However, that in no way means that they are not a factor in the spread as you yourself said, and the reactions of the people in and around the Flooded District make it pretty damn clear that they are not a threat you can wave off. They are a threat to life and limb by their very existance, whether through fault of their own or not, and the majority of the common NPCs we see recognize them as a problem. As one of the agents of Chaos ripping Dunwall, the Empire, and their lives apart. Therefore, killing them and burning the bodies would hardly be a great tragedy to most of them (especially not the nobility and what have you) and would help SERIOUSLY diminish the plague's spread. Meaning that by the supposed standard the Chaos system is supposed to measure, it would be an indisputable *lowering* of Chaos. Yes, the Empress was not keen on the killing of weepers due to the moral issues involved, that is correct. However, that doesn't change the fact that as a measure of *what's keeping Dunwall together* like the Chaos system was SUPPOSED to chronicle. The supposed justification that you gave- that killing Weepers is bad because it generates chaos in the city and the people and thus outweighs whatever good Corvo's done- seems to ignore the entire point of the Lord Regent's entire containment plan. Killing Weepers isn't something incredible or unknown; it's done as a routine. Or one of them, by the security services. And from what we can tell, most NPCs in the game are perfectly fine with this. Ergo that justification does not fly, by its' own standards or by the standards the Chaos system is supposed to measure. This in no way means it is morally good. Just less Chaotic. tl;dr: What the Chaos System *is*- a ham handed morality system- is different from what the designers *said* it is. It violates its' own supposed tenants multiple times and in multiple places, and so should be judged accordingly. Yes, Legality absolutely enters into the equation. It is wholeheartedly against the Weepers. No dispute, no Shaky feelings. No, most NPCs in the game clearly do not care about Weepers, and they tactly agree to a system that sees them killed as a matter of course in order too keep what's left of Dunwall afloat, ergo making the supposed justification for Weepers raising Chaos invalid by the in-game evidence we see. Yes, Morality absolutely enters into the equation, and that is where the fate of the Weepers is ambiguous and rightfully so. It just isn't properly modeled, wedded as it is to the ham-handed and contradictory "Chaos System" in direct contrast to what the Devs promised. In an ideal world, a Morality system and a Chaos system would be co-existing, but unfortunately that does not happen.